Posted on 02/22/2010 12:00:32 AM PST by capacommie
Actually no. Law of Nations is a term of art, and reflects changing circumstances, just as individual nation’s laws can change.
Your argument is bollocks.
so that’s a certiorari, not a holding
pfft
your categorization does not reflect the constitution which states there’s 2 categories
citizen (statutory) and natural born citizen
it’s the lame bot attempt to conflate
when they made up obama’s total bogus story (nothing you think about him is true anyway) they were so stupid that they forgot that making his fake daddy kenyan would make him ineligible, now you phonies have another battle on your hands, if we take the phony baloney story of barock-efeller hussein on his face value, you all effed up and it’s very useful
I for one do not agree with the 1898 Wong Ark decision that inflated the pool of citizens under the 14th Amendment because the court’s opinion did not follow the intent of the authors. The court in the above post defined the subject as only native born and not natural.
A term of art??? The founding Fathers and especially Ben Franklin were reading and posting art to establish a National Constitutution??? When words remain over years from the same base do they reflect changing circumstances??? Laws change but constitutions do not change with law changes. Interesting use of the word ‘bollocks’to make a point not supported by facts.
Here this might help:
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/
Actually several people had written “The Law of Nations”. The one you quote began a translation of that written by Baron Wolff.
The point is, the Law of Nations changes over time, and is not frozen with a single published document.
I figure Anne “got around” and didn’t know who the baby daddy was. I rather think Frank Marshall was as likely as anyone.
Term of art refers to a legal term whose meaning is established by law and legal processes. Examples of terms of art include “right”, “search”, “press”, “people” and yes, “natural born”.
That can be physical law; like speed of light or speed of sound, constitutional law; in the rare cases where the original intent/meaning is clear; legislative law which can adapt the generalities of the constitution to more specific cases; and common law which adapts legislative law to particular cases, using previous examples as a guide. Legal reasoning is not specifically from category to example, nor necessarily from example to category, but can also reason from example to example directly.
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939): The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that Marie Elizabeth Elg, who was born in the United States of Swedish parents naturalized in the United States, had not lost her birthright U.S. citizenship because of her removal during minority to Sweden and was entitled to all the rights and privileges of that U.S. citizenship. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decree that declared Elg “to be a natural born citizen of the United States.”
Standing in eligibility challenges
Several United States District Courts have ruled that private citizens do not have standing to challenge the eligibility of candidates to appear on a presidential election ballot. Alternatively, there is a statutory method by which the eligibility of the President-elect to take office may be challenged in Congress.
Chester A. Arthur (1829–1886), 21st president of the United States, was rumored to have been born in Canada.
This was never demonstrated by his Democratic opponents, although Arthur Hinman, the attorney in charge of the investigation, raised the objection during his vice-presidential campaign and after the end of his Presidency. Arthur was born in Vermont to a U.S. citizen mother and a father from Ireland, who was eventually naturalized as a U.S. citizen. Despite the fact that his parents took up residence in the United States somewhere between 1822 or 1824,Chester Arthur additionally began to claim between 1870 and 1880 that he had been born in 1830, rather than in 1829, which only caused minor confusion and was even used in several publications.Arthur was sworn in as president when President Garfield died after being shot. Since his Irish father William was naturalized 14 years after Chester Arthur’s birth, his citizenship status at birth is unclear, because he was born before the 1868 ratification of the 14th Amendment, which provided that any person born on United States territory and being subject to the jurisdiction thereof was considered a born U.S. citizen, and because he also held British citizenship at birth by patrilineal jus sanguinis. Arthur’s natural born citizenship status is therefore equally unclear.
My argument with BH Obama has to do with his policies, which would be wrong for the country if he were born in Kansas.
And, from personal experience, I can tell you that it is VERY easy to provide untrue information for inclusion on a Hawaii birth certificate, even several months or years after the birth, and this information will then be deemed true and determinative for all purposes at law. Don’t ask for details, because they will not be forthcoming, but I will state as a fact that people who think that fraud could not have been commmitted to ensure young Barry of a Hawaiian birth certificate are very, very wrong.
******
Who is Obama's birth doctor? Is that such a hard question for the President of the United States to answer?
1. Right now, I would just be satisfied with Obama coming out and announcing to all the world the name of his 1961 birth doctor so that the good doctor and his family can rightfully enjoy all the public glory and public rewards that a doctor who delivered a president of the united States should receive.
2. But surprisingly, dear old Obama has been conspicuously silent when it comes to publicly giving us his 1961 birth doctor's name.
3. Why is dear old Obama denying his 1961 birth doctor and his family all the public praise and rewards that a doctor who delivered the sitting President of the United States should be entitled to?
4. For instance, the doctor and his family could appear all over the television on such shows as Larry King, Hannity, O'Reilly, and Beck AND BECOME INSTANTLY FAMOUS.
5. The good doctor could write a best-selling book about his experiences as a doctor at Kapiolani Hospital, the hospital where Obama says that he was born.
6. The good doctor could have a TV-movie made of his life, and he and his family could become rich and famous from books and movies.
7. The good doctor's family could have members who are important or not so important people today, people who could use the financial rewards and publicity that would come to them when Obama publicly announced the name of his 1961 Hawaii birth doctor.
8. But poor Obama, he is so silent about the name of his birth doctor.
9. So, again, why is the President of the United States behaving in such a terrible way and setting such a poor example to the people of the United States?
10. Could this be the reason: There is NO doctor name or hospital name on Obama's 1961 long form birth certificate?
11. Yes, that is the reason, in my opinion.
And, from personal experience, I can tell you that it is VERY easy to provide untrue information for inclusion on a Hawaii birth certificate, even several months or years after the birth, and this information will then be deemed true and determinative for all purposes at law. Don’t ask for details, because they will not be forthcoming, but I will state as a fact that people who think that fraud could not have been commmitted to ensure young Barry of a Hawaiian birth certificate are very, very wrong.
*******
Stanley Ann Dunham: Obama's mother has been dead for many years.
So I can't understand why a Hawaii hospital, any one, can't tell us if she was or was not a patient there on Aug.4, 1961, Obama's birth date.
I know we have medical privacy laws here and privacy laws there, but, for goodness sake, the woman is dead, and, so, in my opinion, there should be some legal way to just find out if she was a patient at a Hawaii hospital way back on Aug. 4, 1961, nearly 50 years ago.
We don't want any detail medical information as to why the woman was a patient way back 50 years ago.
All we want to know from any Hawaii hospital is this: Was a Stanley Ann Dunham a patient in your hospital way back on Aug. 4, 1961, nearly 50 years ago?
Seriously, is that question so hard to answer from hospitals in Hawaii? In my opinion, I say "No."
Come on, there has to be someone out there who is an excellent lawyer who can find a way to find out if Stanley Ann Dunham was a patient at a Hawaii hospital about 50 years ago on Aug. 4, 1961. Anyone?
Re: the term “natural born” is nowhere in 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act Title3 Chapter1 , neither is the word “natural”
That’s the point, genius. Now, you understand.
A statutory citizen (bestowed by man’s pen) can never be a “natural born” citizen (bestowed by God/nature).
1951 Immigration and Nationality Act is a collection of “statutes.”
Re: “at the time of his birth Obama was not a U.S. citizen “
If born in Hawaii, Obama was, “at birth,” a 14th Amendment “statutory” US citizen.
http://www.theobamafile.com/_eligibility/IssueFourCases.htm#Obama
Natural doesn’t need definition, genius!
When a a person is born within a country of two citizens of that country, that person has no choice. He/she is a “natural born” citizen of that country.
Barack Obama had a choice. He could have chosen to become a Kenyan citizen — it was his birthright as the son of a citizen of Kenyan.
If you don’t understand this simple distinction you have drunk too much of Obama’s Kool-Aid, and you’re a “Gullible.”
http://www.theobamafile.com/_opinion/Gullibles.htm
Churchill was also an English citizen — dual citizenship — not natural born — mom was an American — Churchill was a citizen “by statute.”
No, actually, it's about piracy. The "Law of Nations" here refers to crimes committed against other nations on the high seas. It has nothing to do with a book by a Swiss Philosopher:
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations
Actually, I don’t know that his father was a Kenyan. I am more skeptical than you. His mother might have been protecting someone else, by blaming the pregnancy on someone else besides the actual father. Someone conveniently far away and ignorant of US statutory rape laws.
But, yes, Natural does need definition. Legal definitions can be changed, and may be changed by the legislature, or by common law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.